My peer group made me do it

I am glad that we are leaving the one-sided views of issues that demand a balanced view. For example, we have long thought that criminals should be held entirely responsible for their behaviors. Then we discovered that they may have biochemical reasons to act in anti-social matters. So we became a little more understanding, and were better able to prevent some criminality via drugs or other preventative measures.

But in assessing the impact of, say, our genes (see My genes made me do it) on our behavior, we can swing all the way to the extreme where we excuse behaviors entirely, and in doing so, fail to assign any responsibility for a transgressor’s actions to them. Now, a recent article in New Scientist, entitled They made me do it, discusses a similar trend in crimes done within an influential peer group.

It was horrific. Soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison tortured prisoners. But were they entirely responsible for their actions? Were they really perverted, mean, sick sadistic pschopaths, or were they merely regular people influenced by a difficult environment? And if the latter, how does that affect their culpability, and their punishments handed down by the courts?

1. The profile of one such prison guard:

Staff Sergeant Ivan “Chip” Frederick was one of them. It was not the
only abuse he perpetrated at Abu Ghraib. Among other things, he
admitted making three prisoners masturbate while his colleagues looked
on, and thumping another so hard in the chest that he had to be
resuscitated. Most people would label Frederick as morally corrupt, a
classic “bad apple”. The judge at his trial certainly did. He sentenced
him to eight years in jail, handed down a dishonourable discharge, and
removed his salary and pension. Frederick deserved severe punishment,
the judge argued, because he was exercising free will when he committed
the acts. But was he?

2. How good fathers and husbands turn into monsters

Psychologist Philip Zimbardo from Stanford University in California
thinks not. He believes the judge was guilty of the “fundamental
attribution error” – overestimating the effects of someone’s
temperament on their behaviour and underestimating the effects of the
environment in which they were acting. Zimbardo was an expert witness
on Frederick’s defence team. He interviewed him at length before the
trial and carried out extensive psychological tests. He found no hint
of mental illness or sadistic tendencies in Frederick. “In many ways
this soldier was an American icon: a good husband, father and worker,
patriotic, religious, with many friends and a history of having lived a
most normal, moral small town life,” says Zimbardo. Then he went to Abu
Ghraib and turned into a monster.

3. Group think: we are all susceptible to the various group scenarios

In each of these scenarios, personal culpability is lessened due to various factors, highlighted below.

Mob mentality – anonymity and imitation are the important factors

Group mentality – personal allegiance to leaders, comrades, and the community

4. Polarization – the natural progression when people of like mind isolate themselves

When any group of like-minded people get together, the result can be
equally alarming. One common effect is that the group ends up taking a
more extreme position than the one its members started with – it
becomes polarised.

For example, a group of people who begin a discussion believing George
Bush’s policies on Iraq are merely ill-advised may finish convinced
that his policies are insane. Cass Sunstein, professor of law and
political science at the University of Chicago has identified two
reasons.

First, in like-minded groups you tend to hear only arguments
that support your own viewpoint, which is bound to reinforce it. In
addition, people are always comparing themselves with others and will
shift their position so as not to appear out of line. The same kind of
thinking is behind the phenomenon known as “risky shift” in which
adolescents, already prone to risky behaviour, are even more inclined
to throw caution to the wind when they are with their peers.

5. Polarization and groupthink are magnified by a need for cohesion, a sense of power (which bolsters member self-esteem), manipulative leaders, and manifest themselves in the suppression of dissent.

Polarisation is related to another form of group psychology known as
groupthink, where members strive for cohesion at the expense of all
else. Maintaining cohesion can give a group a sense of power and
bolster the self-esteem of its members, but it can also lead them to
make bad and dangerous decisions. “When group cohesion is based on
congeniality, criticising ideas means attacking the source of group
cohesion,” says Clark McCauley, director of the Solomon Asch Center for
Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict at the University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia. As with social cascades and polarisation, problems often
arise when people rely on what they think others know and fail to share
useful information they might have. This mistake can be compounded by
the influence of a manipulative leader.

6. Crisis (real or imagined) leads to group think

Are you thinking global warming yet?

Another situation in which we are all prone to assuming a strong group
mentality is at times of crisis. This explains why support for national
leaders increases in wartime – and why George Bush achieved almost
unanimous backing for his “war on terror” after 9/11.

7. What do we do to discourage groupthink and polarization?

For a start, we should discourage isolated cliques of like-minded
people and encourage people with opposing views to speak out – and that
applies whether you are trying to prevent terrorism or elect a new
school head [or come to consensus on Global Warming].

The flip side of this is that we should recognise that
extremist groups are usually remarkably homogenous in terms of the
interests, political affiliations, age and socioeconomic status of
their members [which can help Intelligence services in the discovery of fellow extremists)

Understand that the wider social environment influences the decisions made by groups. …. “This is
particularly encouraging as it shows a way of reversing a process that
otherwise can increase public support for terrorism,” he says.

But still, even if the group influences a person, aren’t they still responsible for their behavior and decisions? Should my punishment be lessened because I said “my genes/peer group/devil made me do it?” I think not. But understanding these dynamics can helps us individually resist them, and corporately, to intervene in ways that positively influence the environment.

10 Responses

Hi Stewart:
I have a slightly different opinion from yours. I believe that our nature and nurture affects the various tastes and urges we feel etc, but at the center of it all we have the freedom to choose things. It's as if our nature/nurture creates a menu from which in our freedom we can select a dish. Now since my nature/nurture is different from yours, the menu of choices I have will be different from yours. To use a really silly example, maybe I really like pepperoni pizza, so I am severely tempted to eat the last piece of pizza when it's pepperoni. If you don't have that craving you are not tempted to rudeness the way I am. Everything is like that, our cravings and tastes being affected by all the factors described in the article.
Given that, I am in no position to pretend to be a better person than the sinner down the road, because I have no reason to think that I'd be better than he is if I was stuck with his nature/nuture. For all I know, given the mitigating factors of his N/N, he's actually a much better person than I am, given my particular life experiences and genetic heritage. When I judge him I am being hypocritical (in the technical sense of the word).
It's like jesus said: Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
I know you aren't as impressed with Jesus as we Christians are, but when the guy's right he's right:-)
your friend
keith

Are you being facetious?
No, I'm not being facetious. The idea of "free will" is not only poorly defined, but it's inconsistent with the physical laws of the universe. It's a purely metaphysical concept. We live in a world which is largely, if not entirely, deterministic. Every effect has a cause, and and every cause has it's own cause; at the atomic level, it's all just a lot of particles bouncing off one-another.
Maybe you think that theives ought to be punished for what they've done. But say our studies indicate that, on average, 30% of people who are raised in extreme poverty will steal from others. Should their punishment be reduced by 30%? Their culpability seems obviously tied, at that average ratio, to their upbringing. But why stop there? Surely the other 70% isn't nothing. If we had some a "god's-eye-view" of a person's life, we would be able to meaningfully attribute everything they did to the state of their biology, and further attribute that biology to either the state of their birth, or to some event in the interim. Suddenly statistics are meaningless. With unlimited information, chances are always 100%. Responsibility depends on ignorance of motivation. We don't have access to all that information, nor could we, but it is undeniably present.
Still, people can, and do, hold others accountable for their actions. Whether I like this or not is sort of beside-the-point. In fact, I don't like it, because it leads to misunderstanding, retribution, and violence against people who, themselves, are victims of violence. It also leaves us with situations like the two million Americans who are needlessly imprisoned.
I'm certain you disagree with me, but your reasons will necessarily be based on metaphysical views about either religion, or the way you think things ought to be, which can only ever be an opinion.

Keith, as always, I have nothing bad to say about your personal beliefs. I don't think they make much sense, empirically, but they're not dangerous in any way. In fact, I'm certain it's just the opposite.
In another thread (here), we discussed pacifism and war, and I tried to explain to Aaron why I advocated non-violence:

The attractiveness of my philosophy is that even if you think it's patently ridiculous, you have no cause to be afraid of me. Even if I believe the most absurd, outlandish things, my beliefs will not cause you to worry about me. I'm simply not a plausible threat to anyone, even to those who wish to harm me, or to harm people I love.

This is how I feel about Quakers. I think you've got it wrong, but I love your approach anyway.

Hi Stewart:
I always enjoy the exchange. Let me present a cheap caricature of your view, which you will kindly correct by adding the appropriate nuance to my crude description:-)
Your think the intuition most if us have that we are making our own free choices in this world is an illusion; that we just feel like we have free choice but in fact it's our physical bodies following the laws of physics that brings about what we do. There is no ghost in the machine (I used to listen to the Police a lot before that album came out:-). But it seems to me that if we can be mistaken about such things then we have to seriously doubt whether or not any of our cognitions are accurate enough to draw any conclusions at all. All things are physical? Why should you trust your mind to tell you that when your feelings about such things are just imposed on you by the laws of physics? Ah, but evolution ensures that our cognitions will be more or less accurate because those with inaccurate cognitions die off before they reproduce. But why trust your cognitions that support evolution in the first place? If our thoughts, feelins and beliefs are the result of unconscious forces then why assume they have any connection to reality at all?
Well, I do assume our cognitions are related to reality, thus I am compelled by logic (the contrapositive to use the proper term from logic:-) to reject the idea that we are all physical–there must be more to us than that. And I would also point out that there is no non-circular definition of matter than I know of anyway, so I don't know what a materialist even means when he denies the existence of spirit.
your Friend
Keith

I'm certain you disagree with me, but your reasons will necessarily be based on metaphysical views about either religion, or the way you think things ought to be, which can only ever be an opinion.
I disagree for two reasons. On the practical side, if you avert justice by excusing everyone's lack of character and criminal nature (since we are all fallen), you basically are undermining justice, which leads to societal chaos. If there are no negative consequences for doing evil (and by that I mean punishment, not just karma), fallen human nature will unleash hell.
On the theological side, of course, your position is not quite biblical. The biblical view is that we are responsible for our actions, EVEN IF we had no control over our circumstances. And the discussion of free will and predestination in Christianity is really more about the process of salvation, and not a global rubric.
While our current prison systems have much room for improvement, and while we should focus on more than punishment (biblically, we should focus on restitution of what was damaged/stolen, etc., reformation of the individual, and just punishment), punishment is not only just but good for society and the transgressor (death penalty aside).

Hi Seeker:
It seems that I agree with you considerably more on this issue than with our friend Stewart. But I do want to point out that excusing bad behavior isn't the same as doing nothing at all about that behavior. One could believe that no one is morally responsible for his actions and yet believe that by positive and negative incentives–like jail terms or fines–we can protect ourselves from the chaos that might come from just letting people get away with murder (a figure of speech but in this case perhaps it also is literal). On Stewart's view it is literally wrong for us to judge bad doers as being morally inferior to ourselves. I can think of a mutual friend of yours and mine who said the same thing.
your Friend
Keith

One could believe that no one is morally responsible for his actions and yet believe that by positive and negative incentives–like jail terms or fines–we can protect ourselves from the chaos that might come from just letting people get away with murder (a figure of speech but in this case perhaps it also is literal). On Stewart's view it is literally wrong for us to judge bad doers as being morally inferior to ourselves.
I think this is illogical – if a person is not morally responsible for his action, why have jail time at all? I mean, if you are holding them accountable through punishment, how can you say you are not?
In the article above, the writer disusses just HOW to turn regular people into monsters – you tell them that they will not be held responsible for their actions, and this "frees" them from the dicates of conscience (right and wrong).
On judging others, there is a difference between making an intelligent measurement of someone's moral strength of character, and their actions. and thinking of them as inferior. While they have as much value as a person as others, they may certainly be seen as less morally mature, if not corrupted and broken, than others.
The approach to "judging others are morally inferior" is like saying that if two children take a class, and one gets and A and the other an F, we have unfairly judged the child with an F. But I would say that, though they have the same value as a person as the A kid, and they may even have the same potential as the A kid, in this case, they performed in an INFERIOR manner. And if they establish a pattern of failure, then they may have a bigger problem.
Same with those who fail morally. Their performance, and their personal character and virtue may certainly be seen as inferior to others (including ourselves), but that does not make them of less value or make us any less a sinner in the eyes of God.
We are all in need of forgiveness. But let's not confuse a measurement of our current performance and maturity with our value.
On a similar note, a similar argument may be seen in the discussion of the differences between justification and sanctification. Forgiveness does not equal instant maturity. Nor does moral failure and immaturity revoke one's salvation. But they are related.

Hi Seeker:
From before:One could believe that no one is morally responsible for his actions and yet believe that by positive and negative incentives–like jail terms or fines–we can protect ourselves from the chaos that might come from just letting people get away with murder (a figure of speech but in this case perhaps it also is literal). On Stewart's view it is literally wrong for us to judge bad doers as being morally inferior to ourselves.I think this is illogical – if a person is not morally responsible for his action, why have jail time at all? I mean, if you are holding them accountable through punishment, how can you say you are not?
On the view I mentioned above, the reason to have jail time would be that it worked to reduce the amount of crime.In the article above, the writer discusses just HOW to turn regular people into monsters – you tell them that they will not be held responsible for their actions, and this "frees" them from the dicates of conscience (right and wrong).
What do you mean by being held responsible? If holding someone responsible just means there will be negative results–jail time, fines etc.–for bad behavior, then the position I described above would provide just such negative results.On judging others, there is a difference between making an intelligent measurement of someone's moral strength of character, and their actions. and thinking of them as inferior. While they have as much value as a person as others, they may certainly be seen as less morally mature, if not corrupted and broken, than others.
I am sure I might see their sinful neighbor as less morally mature than me, but it's just that kind of arrogance that Jesus was warning about IMO. We have no idea if we are more or less morally mature than those around us–we aren't facing the same things they are.The approach to "judging others are morally inferior" is like saying that if two children take a class, and one gets and A and the other an F, we have unfairly judged the child with an F. But I would say that, though they have the same value as a person as the A kid, and they may even have the same potential as the A kid, in this case, they performed in an INFERIOR manner. And if they establish a pattern of failure, then they may have a bigger problem.
If the tests aren't the same, comparing grades is invalid. And the tests aren't the same–you don't face the same set of moral choices that I face or that Jerry Falwell faced or that Hitler faced for example. To accurately judge someone you have to be privy to what's happening on the inside, and the only person we have that info for is ourselves. Unfortunately, our tendency to see others as less morally mature than us blinds us to our own sin. That's why Jesus told us to take care of the giant log in our own eyes before we worry about tiny splinter in our brother's eye. It's no accident he called our sin the log instead of the splinterSame with those who fail morally. Their performance, and their personal character and virtue may certainly be seen as inferior to others (including ourselves), but that does not make them of less value or make us any less a sinner in the eyes of God.
Only God can accurately measure their sinfulness and we miss the boat and fall into hypocrisy when we put ourselves in God's place wrt judging.We are all in need of forgiveness. But let's not confuse a measurement of our current performance and maturity with our value.
I couldn't agree more.On a similar note, a similar argument may be seen in the discussion of the differences between justification and sanctification. Forgiveness does not equal instant maturity. Nor does moral failure and immaturity revoke one's salvation. But they are related.
Also agreed. We are a work in progress, with God being the potter as it were. We all fail and with God's help we continue to grow. But when we imagine we are competent to measure our neighbors moral maturity we distract ourselves from our own imaturity. That's why jesus was so adamant on the subject IMO.
your friend
Keith